|
|  |
Risk of US to use weapons of mass distraction
Norbert Mai - 21.03.2003 19:13
While there is a lot of concern that the Iraq may use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in the current conflict there might be a much higher risk that US troops may do so.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Risk of US to use chemical weapons (weapons of mass distraction).
While there is a lot of concern that the Iraq may use chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons in the current conflict there might be
a much higher risk that US troops may do so.
One of the official arguments of the US for the invasion in Iraq was
that they posses weapons of mass destruction. It is well established
that the chemical, biological and nuclear capacity of the Iraq has
been destroyed after the Gulf War. According to UNSCOM weapon
inspectors 100% of the necessary infrastructure for the production of
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons had been destroyed at the
time when they left Iraq in 1998. The problem was that the
destruction of the weapons themselves has only be properly documented
for 90-95%. If one assumes as worst case scenario in which the
remaining 5-10% have been secretly hidden they will not form a
significant risk now anymore. The main reason is the limited
halve-life period (the time period until due to aging 50% of the
original material rendered useless) of the chemical and biological
components (while anthrax spores can last ages the limiting factor
here is the form in which it can be spread in an efficient way).
The US always insisted that the Iraq (still) posses weapons on mass
destruction. One of the reasons is the formulation of the original UN
resolution legitimizing the Gulf War. The disarmament of the Iraqi
government was one of the mandates of this resolution. Only after
successful disarmament the mission of the resolution would be
finalized. Meaning if the disarmament has not been finalized the US
army could theoretically still use the UN Gulf War resolution as
justification for military action.
As a result the UN agreed on a new resolution ordering a new weapons
inspection to clarify if the Iraq has been disarmed and if not to
finalize the disarmament procedure.
Ironically just at the time when the Iraq handed over the missing
documentation (one does not know if these have been complete) the US
forced Kofi Anan to ask the weapons inspectors to leave the country.
The importance for the US of the claim that Iraq has biological,
chemical or nuclear weapons also gets illustrated by the attempt to
defend this claims by right out lies.
For example the Blix report after the multimedia presentation of the
US at the United Nations, which was meant to create support for their
war plans, stated that the made claims missed any foundation.
The most striking example how desperate the US administration
apparently is shows the affair around a report in Newsweek magazine.
Newsweek (Newsweek, 3/3/03) reported that Hussein Kamel (Saddam
Hussein's son-in-law), who headed Iraq's nuclear, chemical,
biological and missile programs for 10 years, told CIA and British
intelligence officers and U.N. inspectors in the summer of 1995 that
Iraq had destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stockpiles
after the 1991 Gulf War.
On 24 Feb. Reuters News Service reported that CIA spokesman Bill
Harlow reacted on this report with "It is incorrect, bogus, wrong,
untrue," and that a British government source told Reuters that
"We've checked back and he didn't say this," "He said just the
opposite, that the WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] program was
alive and kicking."
How ever on Wednesday (26 February 2003), a complete copy of the
Kamel transcript (unscom950822.pdf see e.g.
 http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf) an internal UNSCOM/IAEA
document stamped "sensitive" -- be came public.
( http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html).
In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically: "I
ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons -
biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed" (p. 13). It
further contains strong statements and details about the termination
of the Chemical, Biological and Nuclear program in Iraq.( pp 7-8 ,
12-13)
This behavior of the US and UK goes far beyond common war related
propaganda, were straight out lies are a means usually omitted.
It indicates a degree of desperation which should raise major alarm.
The US already announced (link) that they do not exclude the use of
nuclear weapons. Most analysts belief that the US may consider to use
so called Nuclear Bunker Bursters. Nuclear weapons to crack deep
laying bunkers which would destroy possible freed biological or
chemical agents by nuclear fire.
There are also concerns that the US might use similar chemical
weapons the Russians used during the hostage taking of 23 October in
a Russian theater by Tschetschenien terrorists
Nevertheless the biggest concern is that the US might be so
desperately looking for a way to get legitimization for their
invasion that they might dare to orchestrate an apparent chemical
attack by Iraqi troops. (While a biological attack would in theory
also a possibility, but this is less likely since the genetic strain
of the used anthrax might too easily point to the country of origin).
Most people would have rejected such an idea as a pulp fiction
conspiracy theory, but such a tactic wouldn't be something falling
out of the blue.
Recently a memorandum of the US secretary of defense from 13 March
1962 got declassified. The subject of this memorandum is given as
"Justification for US military Intervention in Cuba"
(it can be read online at
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/11_20_01_northwoods.pdf)
It contains the plans of the secret project with code name
"Northwoods". General Lyman L. Lemnitzer explored in this document
the possibility to use some dirty tricks to give legitimacy to an US
intervention in Cuba. The list includes blowing up an US ship, the
orchestration of Cuban Terror attacks in the Miami area, Florida and
Washington or the use MIG type aircraft by an US pilot to attack
ships and to destroy an unmanned (remote controlled) US plane. Thanks
to John F. Kennedy these plans never got implemented.
His successor Lyndon B. Johnson had less scruple. In 1964
US-President Johnson used an invented report that the US destroyer
Maddox had been attacked by Northern Vietnam boats, in order to get
approval from the US congress for air rides against North Vietnam,
which formed the kick off for the long lasting massacres of the
Vietnam war.
But also the last Gulf war has his example of a publicly known staged
event. US TV programs showed a crying nurse in Kuwait claiming that
Iraqi soldiers had taken young babies from the incubators and killed
them. It later turned out that the "nurse" was the daughter of the
Kuwaiti ambassadors and the whole thing set up by an US PR-company.
So we just can hope that someone keeps an eye on the US troops in
Iraq. Maybe the Polish? They are in Kuwait and support the troops
with detection equipment for biological and chemical warfare. Maybe
they remember the start of the invasion of Nazi Germany in their home
country. In 1939 Adolf Hitler staged a Polish attack on the Radio
Station Gleiwitz and used this as the justification for the invasion
in Polen ("Seit 5.45 Uhr wird zurückgeschossen."; Since 5:45 we
answer their fire)
But to be perfectly honest the author is so naive to hope that
writing and spreading this article might help to prevent that the US
administration again gets carried away to take action its people
don't want to bare on their conscience.
Norbert Mai
Some Reverences:
1) War on Iraq, Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, 2002 Profile
Books, London, ISBN 1 86197 636 4
2) Kamel transcript:
URL: http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf
3) The leak of the UNSCOM/IAEA document
URL: http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html
4) The Northwood report
URL:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/11_20_01_northwoods.pdf
5) The Reuters Report on the Newsweek article
URL: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030224_550.html
6) related to "nuclear bunker busters"
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_12/bunkerbuster_dec02.asp?print
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use
iQEVAwUBPntLbHfWk9CDEcBhAQFDIwf/arhwDsM2aA/qN64k1tXlOZz1sZcrFKef
PjTcfnJyFGCPuvsmpbcMPEQEVRzkq6PQbAd/Y9WjDj2i+LVG11AT7GpKiCxaxndK
0c5F4qbTpYhxD2+SCA7agdmcH67olNBUTqO2lF9p9YFnVkgDWh8Y/jFm8MqQqZrv
DbcZeeKIxDLOjPt9lF+xveCeYESwPWgrt0IoqX6sPkJqrBBwzPOHXX5dCKz+PW4m
SefqqJvxfkdYcXJYrTYJpEZiktM/wf29y0DjqyppMFRpk5IWoJNcr1oXpTm8tXGt
v4DUAXKSJwqrEMHxYV9PpiS+6Pqfqf66W6J9qn2sPvPFdvzRpp4NUA==
=4MkH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| aanvullingen | | | use of illegal waepons by the US | Pieter - 21.03.2003 21:52
The pentagon has consistently said it will be (is) using DU-based anti-tank rounds in the new war. DU, Depleted Uranium, is a known health hazard if it is spread in the form of small dust particles. The metal itself is slightly toxic and it is an emitter of alfa-radiation which causes radiation effects on lung tissue if it can get there. Due to the way anti-tank rounds function most DU in these rounds is freed in the atmosphere as small, breathable, particles.
The area around the few iraqi tanks that have been destroyed so far is seriuosly unsafe.
While DU ammunition is not a weapon of mass destruction it is a weapon that causes unneccesary suffering and risk to civilians. As such it can be considered illegal under the Geneva conventions.
| | disception? | 01.04.2003 02:34
America is gonna use weapons of massdestruction, a breech of the convention of geneve. Like the killing of hundreds/thousants of innocent civilians...
| |
| aanvullingen | |
